3 ms·

I don't get the point. If you trust them, isn't it okay to reveal your identity to The New Yorker anyway since they're legally protected from being compelled to

by igul222 13y ago

I don't get the point. If you trust them, isn't it okay to reveal your identity to The New Yorker anyway since they're legally protected from being compelled to reveal your identity? And if you don't trust them, why should you trust that they're not logging your identity even on Strongbox? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

nwh 13y ago
WIth Tor your identity can't be logged. Even if they are forced to reveal their logs, they'd be completely worthless.
duck 13y ago
Have you some how avoided the news from the last couple days?
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  Actually I have, what are you referring to?
  - zokier 13y ago
    U.S. Secretly Obtains Two Months of A.P. Phone Records https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701436
k-mcgrady 13y ago
If you read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article you link you'll see this in the last line: "In the United States, the federal government legally contends that no such protection exists for journalists." There are well documented cases (and even a movie based on true events) of journalists having to go to prison because they wouldn't reveal sources. e.g. Found this on Google searching "reporter source prison": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/08/as-fox-news-reporter-faces-jail-time-for-protecting-source-jake-tapper-wants-to-know-wheres-the-public-outrage/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/08/as-fox-news-repor...
k_kelly 13y ago
American journalists aren't legally protected from revealing their sources at all and there's journalists in jail right now for just this reason.
pwenzel 13y ago
You raise a good point. However, in light of the Justice Department secretly obtaining AP phone records [1], this provides an alternative option for secure information. For information that is best delivered anonymously, this sounds like one of many tools to get your message out there. [1] http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly-obtains-ap-phone-records http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-s...
- mtgx 13y ago
  No he does not have a point. Even if he does trust them, that's irrelevant. The point of anonymity is so others (especially governments) don't find out your identity. That can be done regardless of how much you trust the publisher. Why do you think Wikileaks was invented?
mtgx 13y ago
"If you trust them"? What does that even mean in a time when the US government can pressure reporters into giving them the information anyway, or simply spy on them (see AP spying case).
brown9-2 13y ago
Because if you are going to break the law by leaking information, no matter how noble your cause, I would imagine that every additional person who is aware of your identity would give you tremendous pause.
kmfrk 13y ago
You'll probably have to reveal your identify in many cases, unless your evidence alone is convincing beyond a doubt, but your correspondence should still be performed and stored as securely as possible.

by igul222 13y ago

nwh 13y ago

WIth Tor your identity can't be logged. Even if they are forced to reveal their logs, they'd be completely worthless.

duck 13y ago

Have you some how avoided the news from the last couple days?

tlrobinson 13y ago
Actually I have, what are you referring to?
- zokier 13y ago
  U.S. Secretly Obtains Two Months of A.P. Phone Records https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5701436

k-mcgrady 13y ago

If you read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article you link you'll see this in the last line: "In the United States, the federal government legally contends that no such protection exists for journalists." There are well documented cases (and even a movie based on true events) of journalists having to go to prison because they wouldn't reveal sources. e.g. Found this on Google searching "reporter source prison": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/08/as-fox-news-reporter-faces-jail-time-for-protecting-source-jake-tapper-wants-to-know-wheres-the-public-outrage/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/08/as-fox-news-repor...

k_kelly 13y ago

American journalists aren't legally protected from revealing their sources at all and there's journalists in jail right now for just this reason.

pwenzel 13y ago

You raise a good point. However, in light of the Justice Department secretly obtaining AP phone records [1], this provides an alternative option for secure information. For information that is best delivered anonymously, this sounds like one of many tools to get your message out there. [1] http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly-obtains-ap-phone-records http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-s...

mtgx 13y ago
No he does not have a point. Even if he does trust them, that's irrelevant. The point of anonymity is so others (especially governments) don't find out your identity. That can be done regardless of how much you trust the publisher. Why do you think Wikileaks was invented?

mtgx 13y ago

"If you trust them"? What does that even mean in a time when the US government can pressure reporters into giving them the information anyway, or simply spy on them (see AP spying case).

brown9-2 13y ago

Because if you are going to break the law by leaking information, no matter how noble your cause, I would imagine that every additional person who is aware of your identity would give you tremendous pause.

kmfrk 13y ago

You'll probably have to reveal your identify in many cases, unless your evidence alone is convincing beyond a doubt, but your correspondence should still be performed and stored as securely as possible.